Hey everyone,

I wanted to explain some aspects of the current trial.

I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me if you believe I'm wrong.

Presently, the government is presenting its case against Larken. The government is calling witnesses and asking them specific questions. These questions and the witnesses responses become the subject matter for cross examination. Larken can only ask questions on cross examination that relate to a question posed to the witness by the government or relate to an answer provided by the witness in response to one of the government's questions. Larken cannot wonder into new topics that were not part of the subject matter as defined above.

After the government rest its case, Larken will get his opportunity to call his witnesses and he can then introduce new topics and ask his witnesses any questions he wants. He may even be able to call the governments witnesses back to the stand to explore new subject matter that wasn't included in the government's presentation. If he did, the court would probably grant permission to treat them as hostile witnesses which would allow him to ask leading questions.

There are a whole bunch of other procedural rules, but I thought these basics might benefit some of you following this trial.

On another note, I would like to address the concern I've heard by some regarding the juries apparent lack of enthusiasm. Thus far, this jury has endured opening statements, wherein the government's attorney appeared weak and boring, and now a day of the government calling witnesses to confirm the obvious. Yes, Larken works. Yes, Larken had income. Yes, Larken used to file. These things Larken has already admitted via legal stipulations.

No wonder the jury is bored. I doubt intravenous injections of expresso could keep them awake through the government's side of this trial, so I wouldn't judge them on that.

Let's see how they respond after the government rest its case, and Larken takes control of the court room to present his defense.